Sisyphus

The latter, of course. You disagree that relativity is experimentally well-supported?

Acceleration is distance per time per time. You change time, you change acceleration. e.g.: Say that under relativistic time compression, the observer on the train experiences 1/10th the amount of time as the observer on the platform. A spring on the train, stretched and released, will oscillate 1/10th as many times per trip as a spring stretched with the same force and released on the platform. In androstanian physics, however, we have declared that both observers actually experience the same amount of time, and it just all "clocks" that are distorted. Hence the spring on the train, stretched to the same amount, undergoes 1/10th the acceleration. So you either have to say that f=ma is not true, or say that fundamental forces change in magnitude.

Hmm. We're also at a big spike in mad pseudoscientists.

The result of that experiment is the same. However, f=ma no longer holds, so you'll have to redefine what you're measuring (since that is the definition of force).

So you just have to say that f=ma is not true, then. Since the same net force, applied to the same mass, will accelerate it different amounts depending on whether or not its on train.

Because 1G is a huge amount of acceleration to maintain for any extended amount of time.

If by speed you mean magnitude of velocity, then no, there doesn't seem to be.

It's not that simple, because it isn't just C that changes. Everything has to change along with it. One example: pulling on a string with enough force to break it, measured by the acceleration of a mass. Except that if your unit of time is "trip," then you get a different values for acceleration, hence force, hence tensile strength, hence intermolecular forces, hence all electromagnetism. Depending whether you're pulling on the string on the train or not.

To say the "trip" is the same quantity of time for both observers, they would have to be measuring different values of C (as well as differences in pretty much every other imaginable clock, from radioactive half lives to rate of thought), and consequently of all other fundamental constants. You would end up with totally different physics for each observer.

No, it isn't consistent. That's the point. "It always takes me exactly the same amount of time to get to work: one trip." In order to force the measurement of time into that standard, literally every other possible "clock" would have to be off by the same amount. The speed of light would change, etc.

So in the twin paradox, if I said the traveling twin aged 1 year while the stay at home twin aged 50 years, you would disagree and say that they both aged exactly one "traveling twin's journey?" Do you see the problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio and more specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

So the question is why do women have a longer life expectancy than men?

Yes, the FDA is very conservative about what they approve - probably too conservative. But the "suppressing for the sake of the drug companies" thing is total BS. If it did 1/10th of what those scammers claim, there would be no way the FDA or anyone else could keep it a secret. People would be using it and getting better, and it would be big news despite not being officially approved. However, there is no evidence that it does anything but make you sick, besides the word of the people selling it. If someone claimed that getting hit in the face with a baseball bat cured cancer, I wouldn't bother looking for proof that it didn't work. I would ask for evidence that it did (but I wouldn't hold my breath).

Yes, it's a scam. It is different than NaClO, but it's still bleach, and drinking it will have pretty much the same effect as drinking Clorox. It does not cure diseases. Read this: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm220747.htm

Exactly. File like any other nonprofit organization, and follow the same rules. That places of worship get special treatment in the first place is what I've never understood. It's definitely a violation of a separation of church and state, which is why it's especially strange that they're trying to defend it on those grounds. I don't think they'll have much luck.

There are?

What opposing side? This isn't a movement to promote a particular policy platform. John Stewart does personally express opinions, of course, and when he engages guests I think he's almost always fair and respectful. That isn't the focus of the show, however.

No, it's the opposite of what you say. They're not calling the political positions insane. They're calling the rhetoric insane. The slogan is "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler." It's taking a stand against the kind of hyperbolic, fear-mongering ad hominem rhetoric that has become more popular, no matter what actual political position it's being employed in support of.

Heh, and he won with 822 votes. No, not by 822 votes, with 822 votes. In DC, the Democratic primary is the only election that matters.

I still don't get it. What does correlated with history mean? In 2000, the number of specifically female teachers having sex with students dramatically increased (citation needed?)? And you blame this on what?

If you need the threat of "ultimate punishment" not to do wrong, then you are no better than an animal, I agree. I don't understand what argument you're making. Has there been a dramatic increase in teachers having sex with students? Correlated with what? When did "society go wrong," and why is this of all things a measure of it? Remember you're on a science forum.

Why would that nullify the journey? The journey is what exists. Why does it matter where you "end up?" (And if where you "end up" is what matters, then wouldn't it never ending also mean that nothing matters?) Why is the last thing more important than everything that comes before it?

Why would it matter if there was life after death?

Right. But a "missing link" is not knowing how something happened. From there, the bad assumption is that it happened for no particular reason.